Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #182521

Re: Windows Spotlight shows picture information data on lock screen of one PC, but not others.

From	VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH>
Newsgroups	alt.comp.os.windows-10
Subject	Re: Windows Spotlight shows picture information data on lock screen of one PC, but not others.
Date	2025-02-23 13:27 -0600
Organization	Usenet Elder
Message-ID	<1aotdo6pksi73.dlg@v.nguard.lh> (permalink)
References	<vpctqt$1jqq$1@dont-email.me> <vpd8ad$3i85$1@dont-email.me> <11c91l2g7uznt$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> <vpfur3.ro4.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>  
>> Disabling the requirement for Ctrl+Alt+Del is a tweak used by those
>> that don't give a gnat's fart about securing their host, and the
>> same folks that configure Windows to automatically login, so they
>> don't ever have to bother with entering their login credentials (and
>> later they forget what they were since they never use them).
> 
> Lighten up, will you!? There *is* no "Disabling the requirement for
> Ctrl+Alt+Del", it's off by default.

Confused by that statement.  You mention how to use a policy to change
the Ctrl+Alt+Default requirement, you mention there is a "default"
(which means other choices exist), yet you now say say there is no
disable.  There is, there is, but there isn't?

You mentioned using the security policy editor, but not all editions of
Windows have that.  For those without gpedit.msc, the policy is exposed
by using netplwiz.exe (Control Panel "User Accounts" applet).
Thankfully that setting does not incorporate a double negative.

> So if your advice would be to enable it, that would be fine. But your
> condescending "those that don't give a gnat's fart about securing
> their host" (and the equally insulting rest), is both uncalled for
> and incorrect.

Those points identify users that REDUCE security.  They don't want the
inconvenience (having to login) of a secure host hence my equal but
derogatory they "don't give a gnat's fart about securing their host".  I
could've said "they don't want the inconvenience of a secure host", but
obviously you and I have opinions about their choices, and I expressed
mine with a berating tone.

> And no, I do *not* use 'Secure sign-in' and yes, I *do* use Windows
> Spotlight.

So, you're condemning Microsoft for making required sign-ins more secure
by not providing a workaround via Spotlight.  Seems Microsoft did use
your scientific method: not requiring sign-in is insecure, so no point
in securing Spotlight, either.

Thread

csiph-web